New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-07-06
honor to s.alwsrs Republican and DOpuiss public ON
CONSERVING THE COMMERCE. LAW.
DECISION BY AN OREGON JUDGE.

COMPETITION MAKES THE DIS 'IMILARITY OF con-
pIrroNs CONTEMPLATED BY TnR ACT.
PORTLAND. Oregon July 5.-It appears from the petit
ton filed by the receiver that the Oregon and California
road viii be soon connected with tie California and
Oregon road. when the win form through line be-
tween and San Francisco that between tn
points there 10 also water communication; that the
Oregon Pacific railway. with the ala OF STEAMBOATS, on
; the willamette River now receives portion OF the
freight which woui otherwise be carried on the oregon
California road that the Canadian Pacific roan con-
meets with line steamers rlnning between its west
ern terminus and Francisco, and that to compete
with such all water and rail and water transportation
It ssary make the corresponding rates on the
Oregon and California road.
The receiver asks Arst whether under the Interstate
Commerce such rates be made for through trao
IS will the Oregon and California road TO compete
the at points where competition by water or
rail exists although the for the long haul between
Portland and San Francisco intervening points may
be less than those for shorter haul In the Same
direction: and second, whether in conjunction with the
Northern Pacific Railroad other transportation hnes
the Oregon and California road may meet the oompet
ton of trsnsoontnenta business originating to tho
north and east Of Portland although ts share Of the
through rate may than the local charges the
road its share OF the through rate on competitive busi
ness between Portland and San Francisco.
Judge Deay rsfsrs at some length to the decision he
years ago In the pdrte Koehler % Fed
Oregon aud California road make lower rate for
competitive long haul than for short haul notwith-
standing the act Of the Oregon Legislature OF 1882
known as the Hout law, which prohibited corporation
from charging greater for carrying similar prop
erty for short haul than for long one In the same
direction The court says in part:
The Interstate Commission In intended. among other
things to prevent Discrimination between long ana snort
hsuls except where they made under SUBSTANTIALLY
dssrnilar circumstances and conditions Freight carried
20 or from competitive point Is always carried under
from that carried to from non-competitve points
In latter the railway makes It's own rates III
circumstances are altogether amer
emit Competition controls the charge Composition may
not be the only circumstance that makes the CONDITION
under which longer and short hans performed SUD
stantay dissHlar but II certainly is the most obvious
and most effective one, and been In contemp
lation Of Congress In passing the act
The refers to the OF the Union Pacific rail-
way against United States, 10 u. 81 662, and III u
g. $685. wherein tho company charged the Govern mont
local for transporting United States troops from
Council Bnfs to Ogden such rates being higher Than
Francisco. The question decided l. favor OF the
Union Pacific by the Supreme Court, which held tlif
u. s. $3.50 the services rendered by railway company
transporting local passengers from one point on it
line another Is not Identical with the service rendered
IN transporting through passenger over the same
rails"
Congress never intended to make Of this act pro
crstean bed in which the conduct or the business OF
roads engaged I'm Interstate commerce shall be MADE 10
arbitrary rule, without reference 70 pro-
aho and differences In the conditions
and circumstances under which must be transacted